E-mail Discussions on

"Peeves" Topics

by

Charles A. Doswell III

Created: 25 Jan 2002

From time to time, folks have sent me e-mails, as requested on
my Peeves page. This page is designed
to air those discussions without cluttering up the main page. Each
correspondent has agreed with my request to make these "public" and I
hope you'll find them as interesting and useful as I have.

27 October 1999 - Paul
Sirvatka asked me:

How do you say thermometer or
barometer? Like a barograph or a thermocline? If not, why
not?

To which I replied: Words like thermometer and
barometer are not associated with the system of units
coupled with prefixes. My gripe has been with the latter, since it is
associated with science, which should strive for consistency
insofar as it is possible within our language. If "baro-" is
pronounced differently in barograph vs. barometer, that has origins
that predate the beginning of a system of units based on using
prefixes to denote powers of ten.

Regarding the pronunciation of English words ... it's well-known
that English is replete with inconsistencies of various sorts and I'm
not about to try to take that on, except perhaps as a humorous
essay sometime. I'm sure you've seen some examples of humor that
focus on English spelling and pronunciation. Comparing "cough" and
"through" and "threw" ... etc.

02 August 1999. Joseph Bartlo sent the following e-mail
(lightly edited):

Perhaps you recall a NG discussion a few years
ago regarding the redundancy of solar insolation. This is item 11 of
part A. If so, perhaps you recall my mention that though this is
commonly considered a contraction of INcoming SOLar radiATION, it is
really a form of the term *insolate* (thus insolation) :

These are from the American Heritage
Dictionary, Second College Edition. We know how standard dictionaries
often contain dubious definitions of scientific terms. E.g., 3b does
not refer to insolation so much as it defines the flux. Yet, I think
mentioning the term insolate as the origin for insolation would
clarify this issue much more.

Joesph, you may be right, but I don't think most people abusing
the term have looked up the definition in the AH dictionary. I think
they're using it in the redundant way I've described. I also note
that definition 3a really confirms my suggestion that "solar
insolation" is redundant. Interesting observation, though. For what
it's worth, the current Glossary of Meteorology (the 1959
edition that has yet to be superceded), says (on p. 306):

insolation - (Contracted from incoming solar
radiation.) ... .

27 September 1998, Brian Curran sent me the following:

Interesting article in the
September 14, 1998 edition of National Review.
Included is a review of two books, The King's English:
A Guide to Modern
Usage, by Sir Kingsley Amis (St.
Martin's) and Kingsley Amis: A
Biography, by Eric Jacobs (St.
Martin's). The reviewer, John Derbyshire, makes this
point:

Everyone has his favorite
points for attention in a book like this. One of mine is the use of
"data" with a plural verb form, a schoolmarmism found even in
otherwise reliable publications like, well,
National
Review. "Data" may indeed
derive from a Latin plural; but if it's Latin you're using, be so
good as to print the word in italics. Out of italics, "data" is an
English noun of the aggregative type -- like "rice" or "sand" -- and
takes the singular ("the rice is cooked").

A similar argument can be constructed with
"media". IMHO, this noun falls into this aggregative noun
classification, and therefore can be used both singular and plural
forms. I don't think other Latin nouns, like maximum and auditorium,
are aggregative, thus the plural forms would be "maxima" and
"auditoria".

I think my "schoolmarm" status was assured the very instant I put
this page out on the Web! Hence, I don't fear this particular label,
Brian. In fact, folks like this National Review reviewer who
engage in this sort of pejorative labeling are, IMHO, weakening their
argument by making what amounts to an ad hominem attack
[4] rather than dealing
with the issue.

Moreover, as you might expect, I don't buy this argument. The
singular forms of "data" and "media" (and all my other examples)
exist and are well-recognized in English, whereas the words "rice",
"sheep", "sand", or "moose" are clearly aggregative nouns for which
no distinctive singular and plural forms exist. Nice try, though.

I've already noted elsewhere on this page that I am not likely to
be swayed by arguments based on usage ... that also makes me
vulnerable to being branded with a number of other pejorative labels.
BFD.

24 April 1998: Jesse Ferrell sent me the following e-mail:

I hate to burst your bubble (yea!
I didn't say "bust!"), however with #12, according to Merriam-Webster
Online it is indeed a word. At http://www.m-w.com/dictionary.htm, they say:

Main Entry:
ir·re·gard·less

Pronunciation:
"ir-i-'gärd-l&s

Function: adverb

Etymology: probably blend of
irrespective and
regardless

Date: circa 1912

nonstand : REGARDLESS

usage:
Irregardless originated
in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly
widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage
commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark
about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word,
however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be
found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen
over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance.
Use regardless
instead.

Sorry, Jesse ... I consider my bubble to be still intact! In fact,
this is another of my pet peeves! I hate it when spineless or
pedantic lexicographers formally recognize bad usage. It removes the
strongest possible argument (for some "believers") against bad usage:
the fact that the bad usage is not recognized by the "authorities" of
language. We used to say ... "Ain't ain't in the dictionary!"
... and then it was! This provides those who indulge in bad
usage with a perfect excuse to keep using it; after all, it is
in the dictionary! By this argument, if enough people use bad
language, then literally by definition it becomes good language. Ugh.
I just don't accept this line of
reasoning.[3]
Besides, what I said (above) was " this one is not even an
acceptable word" (emphasis added) ... not
that it isn't (ain't?) a word. But thanks for the excuse to
add this item.

__________________________

Further discussion added on 26 June 1998:

In the same e-mail regarding split infinitives
(here), Kai Esbensen included
the following (and I responded):

P.S. "Ain't" has always been in
the dictionary. The story of the fall from grace of "ain't" is this:
"Ain't" used to be the perfectly innocent and valid contraction of
"am not". As in, "I ain't no liar none, Bobby Sue!" But people began
using it outside its intended scope, using it to mean "isn't" and
"aren't" -- a verbal crime for which many were severely reprimanded.
Unfortunately, the way people were corrected for this misuse was
apparently quite vague -- probably something along the lines of,
"Don't say that!" followed by a swift smack to the head. Over time,
the reason for all those smacks to the head was forgotten, and all
that remained in the collective consciousness was that "ain't" was
somehow not a "real word". To this day, of course, the English
language is conspicuously lacking the would-have-been-useful "am not"
contraction.

This is also a new one for me, and another story for which I'd
like to have some documentation. The lack of an "am not" contraction
is an obvious void, and I've wondered about it from time to time.
English is rife with such oddities ... the peculiarities of English
spelling seem to get the most press coverage, but there are many
other "fossils" from earlier eras. Our language (and others!) is like
the City of New York ... as it evolves, you have to keep the old
infrastructure in place and working, so the new structures are not
always logically constructed. They had to fit in old niches that
wouldn't even be there if you started all over again with a clean
slate.

You'll see some of your pet peeves dealt with on these pages. Of
course, some agree with your points, others disagree. But, what else
is new?

10 October 2001, Daphne Zaras and I had the following
exchange:

>Wow... I hit two pp's... cool... :-) but would that be pps, better
>written PPs? Because it's just plural of an acronym. :-)

Interesting question. I've seen this done ... i.e., adding the
apostrophe to indicate plurals of acronyms ... but I don't know for a
fact if this is the right thing to do or not. Hmmmm..... I'm not sure
where to go to find out if there is a "ruling" on the question
somewhere ...

16 December 2001, David White and I began a series of
e-mails, with his comment:

I was searching for pages about bad English usage and came
across your page that discusses the pronunciation of 'kilometer'. I
say KIL-ometer and I agree that that is the logical pronunciation,
but there is a technical argument in favour of kil-OM-eter. Apart
from politics, a former prime minister of Australia, Gough Whitlam,
is known for his extraordinary knowledge of the English language and
history. He argues that 'kilometer' is of Greek origin (or, at least,
'kilo-' and 'meter' are Greek) and that in Greek the stress would be
on the antepenultimate syllable, which makes the correct
pronunciation kil-OM-et-er. I can't find his own words on the subject
on the internet except for a brief mention here:

This is a strange, very alien concept to English, it seems to me.
The "antepenultimate" syllable conveniently works for km as
"kil-OM-et-er", but wouldn't apply to "kil-OG-ram. However, it
demands we should pronounce mm as "mill-IM-et-er, and cm as
"cent-IM-et-er", which I doubt he is advocating.

This is an interesting argument, but I'm still in favor of
consistency and see no reason to alter that, irrespective of such
subtleties.

David replied on 19 December (my responses interspersed in
a different font):

I can't speak for Mr Whitlam, but I suspect that he does not
recommend "mill-IM-et-er" and "cent-IM-et-er". His argument for
"kil-OM-et-er" is on the basis that the entire word is of Greek
origin.

I find that very hard to believe! Did the Greeks invent the
kilometer? The origins of "kilo" and "meter" (or "metre" if you
prefer) might well be Greek, but "kilometer" is NOT a Greek word! And
even if it's true in some abstract sense, for the use of such terms
in science, my plea is certainly not based on esoteric etymological
rules.

The prefixes "centi-" and "milli-" are Latin, so the Greek
rule of pronunciation wouldn't apply. The link to the speech that I
gave is down at present (it was working when I sent the e-mail), but
from memory he used "bar-OM-et-er" and "ther-MOM-et-er" as
similarities.

I prefer not to argue by analogy, if it can be avoided. When it
comes to pronunciation in English, in general, I have no hope for
consistency. But these are terms with a scientific slant, and I
really am not interested in the etymology. I'd like their
pronunciation to be consistent. Will I win over the multitudes with
my Web page? Probably not.

I'm sure he chose these because "baro-" and "thermo-" are both
Greek also. In the case of "kil-OG-ram" ("gram", or "gramme", is
Greek), perhaps the antepenultimate syllable rule doesn't apply to
three-syllable words.

I think it is interesting that of the words "kilometer",
"centimeter" and "millimeter", "kilometer" is the only one that many
people naturally pronounce "kil-OM-et-er", and this also happens to
be the only one whose origin supports that pronunciation.

I don't think the notion of "natural" applies to pronunciation. We
pronounce words how we are taught and how we hear them pronounced.
Pronunciation is essentially arbitrary, and what is "natural" to us
is not something inherent, but a matter of socially-imposed habit.
Mispronunciations abound as a consequence. I'm not trying to change
people ... that's essentially impossible ... but I can GRIPE about
these things at will. Remember, my Website is only *partially*
serious about all this.

Coincidence, or did the Greek words evolve with the
antepenultimate syllable rule well established, so that they would
naturally be pronounced that way?

On 20 December, David responded:

> I find that very hard to believe! Did the Greeks invent the kilometer?
> The origins of "kilo" and "meter" (or "metre" if you prefer) might well be
> Greek, but "kilometer" is NOT a Greek word! And even if it's true in some
> abstract sense, for the use of such terms in science, my plea is certainly
> not based on esoteric etymological rules.

Yes, this is the same argument my colleague at work used today. He
has studied linguistics quite a bit and pointed out that in classical
Greek, the word 'metron', from which we derive 'meter', means
'measure'. It was not a unit of measurement as we use it. Therefore,
even though 'kilo-' and 'meter' are classical Greek, they would not
have had the word 'kilometer', even if they needed a word that has
the meaning that the word has to us. In spite of this, I'm pretty
sure that the above is Gough Whitlam's argument. The comments he's
made on the subject have always been specific to 'kilometer' and its
Greek origin and I would be very surprised if he also recommends
'mill-IM-et-er' etc.

> I prefer not to argue by analogy, if it can be avoided. When it comes to
> pronunciation in English, in general, I have no hope for consistency. But
> these are terms with a scientific slant, and I really am not interested in
> the etymology. I'd like their pronunciation to be consistent. Will I win
> over the multitudes with my Web page? Probably not.

I prefer to be consistent where I can, unless another convention
has been well established. I guess if you are a student of history,
then the etymology will be all important, but if you are logical and
practical, then it won't. I'm usually conservative in English, but I
prefer KIL-o-met-er because I think it logical to separate the
multiplier and the unit, not join them in the syllable -OM-.

>I don't think the notion of "natural" applies to pronunciation. We
>pronounce words how we are taught and how we hear them pronounced.
>Pronunciation is essentially arbitrary, and what is "natural" to us is not
>something inherent, but a matter of socially-imposed habit.

I don't entirely agree with this. Certainly, we say words the
way we are taught, but I believe that the pronunciation that develops
tends to be what seems easiest or the most 'right'. Words had to
start somewhere, and at that point, and when people come across a
word they've never seen and have to guess how to pronounce it, is
when what I've called the 'natural' pronunciation will occur.

My linguistic colleague is also very doubtful of this
suggestion. He doesn't agree that people's tendency to say
'kil-OM-et-er' is because of the Greek pronunciation rule, but I
still think there's something in it. Even though 'kilometer' is not a
Greek word, it is still made of parts that, I suppose, were suitable
for their pronunciation rule. Maybe it's just the 'o-' in 'kilo-'
that makes it seem more reasonable to say 'kil-OM-et-er'
than'cent-IM-et-er'.

and my response was:

Although my knowledge of languages other than English is no more
than superficial, I think trying to pronounce non-English words tells
me that what *I* think of as "natural" is largely a matter of being a
native English speaker. I can't claim to know anything about the
origins of human speech, but the diversity of existing spoken human
languages (compare Spanish, Chinese, Finnish, Russian, and German,
for instance, to say nothing of some of the more obscure ones, such
as the numerous and very diverse native American languages) indicates
to me that we can twist the human vocal cords, lips, palates, etc.
into some pretty bizarre (to ME!) contortions in trying to develop
sounds that have assigned meanings. Which of them is "natural"?

On 21 December, David concluded the discourse with:

Perhaps my suggestion should be confined to those I hear most
often - native English-speakers around me and in the media. I think I
hear more people say 'kil-OM-et-er' than 'KIL-o-met-er', despite
dictionaries' recommendation for the latter. Never have I heard a
person say 'cent-IM-et-er'. I find it hard to believe that this is
entirely because of what people hear or what they are taught. I think
there is something about 'kilometer', which 'centimeter' lacks, that
attracts many people to use the former pronunuciation. I think they
just like to say 'kil-OM-et-er'. I can't point to exactly what the
difference is, which is why I suggested (or just guessed, really)
that the Greek rule for a word made of two Greek parts has a lot to
do with it. Of course, this theory falls to pieces if the tendency to
use the former pronunciation is confined to English speakers. I have
no idea whether this is true or not.

On 22 January 2002, Jim Means sent me:

You may remember that I wrote to once before about your definition of
tornado; now I'm surprised to be writing again about the plurality of the
word "number." I've lost my copy of Strunk and White, but I think most
modern dictionaries and books on usage consider "number" as plural when
preceded by "a," and as singular when preceded by "the." So the usage that
peeves you should be regarded as correct. "Number" is a word that can be
singular or plural, depending on context. Of course, that may not stop you
from being peeved about it!

to which I replied:

I've NEVER heard the word "number" to be considered a plural form!
There's a perfectly obvious plural form for humber ... "numbers" ...
so, regardless of whatever obscure source you can scare up for this,
I'll continue to be peeved, as you've correctly anticipated.

"A number" is considered a plural?? The use of the indefinite
article "a" is also clearly and unambiguously associated with
*singular* nouns (as is the definite article "the"), so for this to
be viewed as transforming its associated noun into a plural would be
astonishing to me! What relevance the article would have in
establishing whether or not the noun is plural is something totally
beyond my knowledge of English grammar. It seems to me that whether
or not the noun is plural determines the appropriate article, not the
other way around: "He ropes a cow." vs. "He ropes cows." (no article
necessary) "He ropes this cow." vs "He ropes these cows." Definite
vs. indefinite articles is another matter altogether!

His response on 23 January was:

Ha! I knew you wouldn't go along with it. Anyway, the sources that I have at
hand are The American Heritage Dictionary (the online edition):
http://www.bartleby.com/61/13/N0191300.html
"As a collective noun number may take either a singular or a plural verb. It
takes a singular verb when it is preceded by the definite article the: The
number of skilled workers is small. It takes a plural verb when preceded by
the indefinite article a: A number of the workers are unskilled."
Words into Type (Third Ed., Prentice-Hall 1974) footnote on p.350:
"'Number' preceded by 'the' is singular, preceded by 'a', plural."
Merriam-Webster's online dictionary:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
"...an indefinite usually large total <a number of members were absent> <the
number of elderly is rising>"
As I said, these are just the ones at hand, I think you'd be hard-pressed to
find any dictionaries or books on usage that would disagree. As for the
logic of it, well that's another matter. No one said that English was
logical.

which generated my reply:

Agreed ... but this smells like a classic example of the "usage"
argument, where jelly-spined dictionary compilers accede to the great
unwashed masses. As you anticipated, I'm not buying into this
nonsense. Maybe English isn't logical, but this is just absurd.